You can archive or whatever (nothing happened, it's not worth much) the debate between myself and DoL. It wasn't working. Not his fault, not mine. Wrong subject.

I wouldn't even say wrong subject. It was just real life got in our way for the debate we were wanting. When the time comes again, I would love to continue where we left off. I still think it is very valid.

This post is to work out the details of the discussion. We need to establish three things:

1. the topic. I am not particular what we talk about but I would like it to be limited in scope. I would rather not start off talking about, say, kalam and end up fighting about evolution. 2. rules. Who goes first, format, expected frequency of posting, and anything else you'd like to include. 3. how long this is going to go. It can be a limited number of posts, or some other measure, but I'd rather not leave it open ended.

I think it would be fair if the person who wishes the debate makes his/her own post. To remove all doubt, that person should also include the proposition that they will defend.

For example, the poster might propose, "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the New Testament, actually existed as a real individual." or "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the Bible, is fictitious and merely embodies folk tales and ideas of the time."

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I would like to suggest (for someone else as I am not presently able to participate) the debate:Jesus Christ (as set out in the gospels) is a historically verifiable person.

Thanks for the suggestion. The way it works is exactly the way Greybeard said it should. If outside this thread you can talk other members into debating this topic, then good for you. Otherwise this is for debates to be set up by participants.

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc). If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.

Sure, although it's amusing to hear that, as i get lots of grief for limiting my participation.

First of all, you wouldn't get any grief for limiting your participation if you would simply say, "OK, there's ten of you and one of me. I need to slow down for a minute and catch my breath." We would respect that. All of us here (including me) have participated in debates in which we were badly outnumbered. We know how overwhelming it can be.

Second, though, and more importantly: you're asking for a formal, one-on-one debate, which is different in several important ways from a time management point of view (I have quite a bit more going on in my life than WWGHA).

If you say something that I've heard and refuted a thousand times before (which is likely; trust me, I've been doing this for decades), I can't just roll my eyes and decide to wait for someone else to deal with it, as I often do in standard threads. I have to handle it myself. This takes additional time, especially inasmuch as I haven't gotten around to writing up stock response to those points that I can copy and paste.

Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.

I would hope that fair warning given in advance about a particular circumstance would be treated with some respect. If you know what's coming, you know what to expect.

Anyway. PM screwtape when you're ready, Black Knight, and we'll have at each other.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)

To be fair: the point of a debate challenge is a one-on-one encounter. He challenged me, I accepted, it should stay there. Those wanting to debate him on the same point (or any other point, for that matter) should give their own challenges, which he can accept or decline as he chooses.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.

I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists." in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it. I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable. i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end. I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing". I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.

I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists." in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it. I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable. i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end. I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing". I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field.

I'm Ok with the removal of "reasonably," but I think we run into the same problem, perhaps even more so, with "plausible." Further, the web site itself stresses the importance of "unambiguous" and "ambiguous," which is why I chose "unambiguous" in the first place. So, I propose:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

okay, I'm good with that. You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.

I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

okay, I'm good with that. You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.

I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.

so you won't use your own defintions? Interesting and I am curious to see how you interpret what you think the site actually says. Please let me know what this "relevant" article is. How about if we don't count requests for clarification in the post number?

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB